I'm all for letting Eric Williamson off the hook. But you have to be an idiot not to know that when it's dark outside and the lights are on inside, if the windows are uncovered, from the outside, the interior of the house looks lit up like a theater stage. If it's light outside, and you are relying on natural light inside, the interior probably looks dark from outside. Now, when it's dark outside, duh, you can't see the people outside. But that's all the more reason why you don't want to walk around naked with the lights on and the curtains open.

Salamandyr, I had to do the same thing! My wife had the notion that because she could not see what was outside, that others could not see what was inside. (Although if it had been one of her friends clueing her in, I don't think the field trip would have been necessary.)

College girlfriend's parents built their dream home on the edge of a gorgeous golf course. The Master Bath Shower had a full outside wall of 1 way glass - or so they thought. You couldn't see in from the outside - during the day. A month into their new home, my girlfriend decides to leave the nighttime pool party at her parents house and take a shower - SURPRISE!

Still no indication of the size of his yard, location of the window in proximity to the street.

If the people were trespassing, as I assumed from previous articles, then how far from the public walkway onto his private property did they have to stray to get a glimplse of the man?

If they had to tresspass on his property in order to see him, maybe he should press charges.

If they had stayed on public property would they have been able to see him?

Until we know these things....we know nothing.

Police said he wanted to be seen. What is this, a thought crime?

Seriously. How do the police "know" that he wanted to be seen? Do they have retroactive ESP?

We have NO curtains or window coverings in our house with the exception of the french doors in the bedroom and some wooden 2 inch blinds at the dining room french doors and those are only for heat loss at night. The rest of the time the windows are not screened because we use passive solar during the day to heat the house.

The upshot here is that soon anything involving nudity or sex, say, a certain couple in Madison WI watching a self-help video of erotica, could get busted for a variety of charges if it was visible from outside.

Truth be told, muddimo...I've found myself in a lit room with an open window a few (many) times myself. We keep the shade up on a couple windows so the cat's can look out. However that means if I get out of bed, to say, go to the kitchen, there are times when I'm shall we say...backlit. Actually it's frontlit, but you get the point.

Honestly, even if the guy was acting a bit exhibitionist, really what's the big deal? He's in his home. The "traumatized" person was a trespasser.

I imagine most kids growing up see their parents or their siblings naked. If that doesn't scar anyone, seeing a stranger in their altogether isn't either.

I'm wondering if there isn't some history of disputes with the neighbors that we aren't being told about. That often turns out to be the case, after all the faux outrage is over with and everyone has forgotten things. It may not be "normal" to walk around naked in one's own house, but it's even less normal to call the police because you just happened to walk by and saw your neighbor was naked in his own house. The normal response would be to feel slightly embarrassed, look away quickly, and go about your day. And if your kid is with you I'd think it would be more important not to freak out and make him think being naked is inherently dirty and criminal behavior. The facts of this case make me think more is going on here besides and honestly offended passerby.

So now a person can't be naked in their own home without fearing some dumb nosy bitch will walk by, peep through the window, realize she's just seen a penis she didn't plan on seeing, clutch her pearls, and call the cops.

"If you want to "let it all hang out" I suggest you attend a nudist colony! Local Christians are offended!"

No, I own a home for that. What Christians are you talking about? I have curtains on my windows in front, but the windows overlooking my fenced back yard are open. I have no problem getting up for a glass of water in the middle of the night in my well lite kitchen possibly shocking the rabbits and squirrels in by back yard. I guess I should prepare for the offended felon who might scale my fence and call the law on me.

"Every person who intentionally makes an obscene display or exposure of his person, or the private parts thereof, in any public place, or in any place where others are present, or procures another to so expose himself, shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor."

Standing in front of a window where the world can see you constitutes a "place where others are present" (and there is no expectation of privacy).

The only defenses here, inasmuch as he admits that he was standing naked in front of the window with the equivilent of a spotlight on him, are (a) the matter of intent, which hinges on his credibility that he was merely innocently making coffee and which is a fact question for the jury, and (b) the element of whether it constitutes an "obscene" display.

The charge of indecent exposure is not an unusual charge at all, at least in Northern Virginia. Typically, the obscenity element is undeniable inasmuch as the usual case involves a guy masturbating where others can see him.

Virginia precedent is clear though that mere nudity does not constitute an obscene display. But, then again, purposely standing naked for all the world to see, getting your jollies off the mere fact of your exhibitionism, even without pleasuring yourself or having an erection, would seem to rise to the level of an obscene display. But that again comes back to mental state, which is for the jury.

I just watched the youtube of the report. Apparently the woman and kid were *cutting through his yard*. JfC. The windows aren't huge. Even if he did a little snarky happy dance when he saw them ogling him (no indication he did), it would still be his right under the circumstances. They were in his yard.

Or is this one of those insane points of law like if a burglar trips on your step, he can sue you?

"A. It shall be unlawful for any person to enter upon the property of another and secretly or furtively peep, spy or attempt to peep or spy into or through a window, door or other aperture of any building, structure, or other enclosure of any nature occupied or intended for occupancy as a dwelling, whether or not such building, structure or enclosure is permanently situated or transportable and whether or not such occupancy is permanent or temporary, or to do the same, without just cause, upon property owned by him and leased or rented to another under circumstances that would violate the occupant's reasonable expectation of privacy.

B. It shall be unlawful for any person to use a peephole or other aperture to secretly or furtively peep, spy or attempt to peep or spy into a restroom, dressing room, locker room, hotel room, motel room, tanning bed, tanning booth, bedroom or other location or enclosure for the purpose of viewing any nonconsenting person who is totally nude, clad in undergarments, or in a state of undress exposing the genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast and the circumstances are such that the person would otherwise have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

C. The provisions of this section shall not apply to a lawful criminal investigation or a correctional official or local or regional jail official conducting surveillance for security purposes or during an investigation of alleged misconduct involving a person committed to the Department of Corrections or to a local or regional jail.

D. As used in this section, "peephole" means any hole, crack or other similar opening through which a person can see.

A true story. A few years ago a friend installed an outdoor shower in a secluded, fenced courtyard off his master bath. One day as he was dressing after showering the police arrived to investigate an indecent exposure complaint.

Upon investigation from the neighbor's property it turned out that the neighbor climbed a 10' ladder to peer over her garage roof. The police were not amused.

The neighbor was nursing a grudge over my friend's home renovation that she and her husband unsuccessfully tried to block.

Wasn't the complainant walking on his property, where she had no right to be uninvited? And exactly how much and how clearly could she see anyway? And why should he have to worry about this when he is trying to get his first cup of coffee? He ought to charge her with sexual harassment.

Another suspicious factor here is how did the media get tipped to this?

Again, indecent exposure is not a very unusual crime in Northern Virginia. So the likelihood of the police or prosecutor notifying the media is next to zero. And there is, again, next to zero possiblity that the media simply stumbled upon this case on their own.

So who called them? Very likely the defendant who, like the balloon father, wanted a bunch of publicity for himself.

As for the absurd assertion that this mother and her child were peeping toms, there is no requirement anywhere that people are obligated to avert their eyes or put on blinders. They have an absolute right to look around the world and, if someone is putting himself on display in front of a window and they see it, that does not constitute "furtive" peeping. And, again, there is no expectation of privacy from such a display.

That they were or were not in the yard of the house in which he was living (from the presence of roommates, it sounds like he is renting and, thus, it is not strictly his property), does not matter if he was aware that others had a practice of cutting across or if he could be seen from a place off the property, such as from the sidewalk, which is entirely likely in the case of a front window.

Of course, to be able to intelligently make a conclusion here, instead of ignorantly shooting one's mouth off, it would be necessary to hear the complainant mother's side of the story.

And the aggravating factor in this case -- ignored by most here justifying this guy's conduct -- is, not that it was seen by the woman (that "dumb nosy bitch" one commenter said), but that it was seen by the child.

And, given that there was a pathway used by other children, such that it is possible that other (unescorted) children may have seen this guy "just making coffee," is a very aggravating factor here.

Indeed, he could find it bumped up to a felony sex crime under Va. Code § 18.2-370 if other children have seen him on other occasions.

My problem is with the person who was trespassing on his property with their kid at 5:30 in the morning, saw him naked, probably leered long enough to get offended and then called the cops to report a naked man in his own house at 5:30 in the morning. My other bigger problem is that she made the unbelievable assumption that seeing his nudity was an intent to be lude or indecent towards her or her child. It's ridiculous.

Do the police have no sense of discretion anymore or even the ability to distinguish that an actual crime took place.

I think the reason that the complainant mother is coming in for so much abuse here is that she's transgressing ordinary societal expectations here, regardless of whether she is transgressing against the letter of the law.

there is no requirement anywhere that people are obligated to avert their eyes or put on blinders.

No requirement, but there's certainly an expectation. If a man is walking around with his zipper down, it's only polite to avert your eyes. And if he is entirely naked in his own kitchen, the decent thing to do is pretend you didn't see anything, not call the police.

They have an absolute right to look around the world and,

Sure, they have a right. But just because you have a legal "right" to do something doesn't make it right, or even acceptable in polite society.

if someone is putting himself on display in front of a window and they see it, that does not constitute "furtive" peeping.

If she didn't call the police, no one would be arguing she ought to be hauled in for peeping. If she'd obeyed basic rules of decency and pretended she didn't see anything, it would all be no harm, no foul.

Now, it might be different if the man had performed a little dance and waved his bits at the passers by -- then there might be some grounds for inferring that he wanted to be seen -- but as far as I can tell, the woman doesn't allege that he did anything more than make some coffee in the kitchen and then head over to the living room.

The wife of a cop trespasses on a man's property and makes a big stink because she sees the guy naked. It becomes a big embarrassing situation once it hits the internet, and local law enforcement authorities insist that he wanted to be seen.

They say that they know this because they got other complaints. But then they admit that they didn't get other complaints and put out the call for other people who might have seen him to contact them.

Totally off topic, but I caught this report of a Northwest Flight going 150 miles past its destination, Minneapolis, before turning around near Eau Claire, WI. Speculation is that the pilots fell asleep and did not wake up until a flight attendant contacted them. Around the time this was going on we were putting the kids to bed and heard an F16 or two heading out of Madison.

They say that they know this because they got other complaints. But then they admit that they didn't get other complaints and put out the call for other people who might have seen him to contact them.

Ah, is that what happened? I couldn't tell -- I saw reports that the police were looking for other people to back up her claims, but I didn't realise they'd already claimed, falsely, that they had received those other complaints.

She is not the only one that the exposure was made to. What matters most here is that a child was present. It doesn't matter how the child was there.

And we have no evidence that he was intentionally exposing himself to a child. He was naked. A kid walked by. Big deal.

At most, at most, this required someone coming over and informing him that his twig and berries was visible from the alley, and would he mind putting up a curtain or wearing some pants. But a no knock raid like he was a drug kingpin? Please.

What matters most here is that a child was present. It doesn't matter how the child was there.

Doesn't it? I'm not talking about the law here -- the law is under absolutely no obligation to be sensible or just, after all -- but about our ordinary expectations. I still tend to blame the mother.

When there's something you don't want a young child to hear, you cover its ears. When there's something you don't want it to see, you turn its head away so it can't. It's one thing if you're in a public place -- something quite different if you're in someone else's yard looking into someone else's home. I mean, for all you know, people could be copulating in there. If you don't want your child seeing that sort of thing, take them by the sidewalk.

A side issue, though -- one I hadn't thought of -- is whether there were sidewalks here. I've never been to Springfield, but other places in the DC area are absolutely terrible as far as sidewalks go. Residential Bethesda, for example, is an endless snarl of detached housing with no sidewalks at all, 100% car transit. So it's possible, in the woman's defense, that there were no sidewalks, and trespassing on the yard was just her walking where a sidewalk would have been, if there were sidewalks. And that's less offensive.

Now, it might be different if the man had performed a little dance and waved his bits at the passers by -- then there might be some grounds for inferring that he wanted to be seen -- but as far as I can tell, the woman doesn't allege that he did anything more than make some coffee in the kitchen and then head over to the living room.

If history is any guide, the woman's story will soon change to include those and even more lurid details.

"the house is located across the street from a bus stop for school children . . . FOX 5 also spoke with some of Williamson's roommates, and they said they believed Eric was drunk on Monday morning when they were all leaving for work around 5 a.m. The alleged exposure happened around 8:30 a.m."

He was also recently convicted of public intoxication and swearing in public, i.e. making an ass of himself.

JAL said earlier, "there is a path which runs between two houses (on private property though) which is used by neighborhood kids as a short cut to go to school"

Apparently there is also a school bus stop across the street (which would likely make the front window of the house visible from there).

The presence of schoolchildren makes the difference. You don't think so? Then you come down here to Virginia and expose yourself to some kid. See how quickly you are made the bitch to some guy in jail.

Whatever, Bender. If you say the media in that area don't have the resources or inclination to cover crime anymore (despite the availability of online press releases, in many places, these days) and therefore there is zero chance anyone would have stumbled on the story, fine. I don't live in that area so I don't know in general, much less in that specific case.

I guess your point was that the guy called the media to try to get sympathy for his side and deflect charges that he's a flasher (or parader)? Why not just come out and say that, then?

The presence of schoolchildren makes the difference. You don't think so? Then you come down here to Virginia and expose yourself to some kid. See how quickly you are made the bitch to some guy in jail.

Yes, as I said -- and thank you for emphasising this -- the law is clearly under absolutely no obligation to be fair or just. Or even humane.

This is all sexist. A woman cutting across his yard reported him to a police woman who asked a Judge (I'll bet she was a woman) and they all felt intentionally attacked by seeing his exposed weapon. How dare men exist and also show off weapons denied to women. This will not be dropped since it involves use of a weapon in the commission of being male.

How many major stories are there that require noe to state this, resignedly, after they've read about it or seen it reported on TV?

Reporters are complete fucking idiots. They don't have the first clue--or desire--to even find out and communicate the important facts of a story.

What reasonable person doesn't read this and ask: "Well, were they in HIS yard?? Were they on HIS property? How close is this window to the sidewalk?" etc.

I swear to god you could yank someone off the street and ask them to report on a story and they'd do a better job than [most] paid journalists. It's really pathetic. I don't even understand what motivates most people in the media.

Balfegor, I think a video of the scene has been linked twice, so far, in this thread. Watching that might answer your question.

I hate watching those videos from the news sites, but I have now watched the video. There is a sidewalk along the front, it looks like, and the area is a lot more spread out than I thought. I'd been envisioning something more like the older bits of Arlington. I guess those curtains on the front windows must have been drawn at the time (or put up since the alleged incident). Visuals of the area don't change my sympathies here, though, at least until I hear about him dancing at them through the window.

Bender, let's say this guy really is innocent (I'm not saying he is; I'm not saying he isn't: I don't know). What would you have him do, especially in an area in which 1) flashers are common and 2) the laws are quite strict and, according to what you've said, apply even if you're inside a home but can be seen from outside of it? Any chance he found out the person who complained was the wife of a police officer (again: I don't know if this has been confirmed, but it has been reported) and was worried he'd get railroaded?

Of course, he also could be guilty as hell, in which case this might well entirely backfire on him and makes it additionally distressing that the news video I saw featured a picture of him with his 5-year-old daughter (face clearly visible).

I just think it's not a bad idea to be a little skeptical all the way around, for now.

It looks like a nice suburban neighborhood. I wonder how the locals feel about one of the houses being rented by a large corporation who offers it out as room and board for their construction workers? I suspect they view the occupants as "transients". The earlier arrest might have stoked the embers of animosity against those "bums just passing through". Something tells me this is all about people looking out for their neighborhood.

OK, here's my scenario: Divers are in good physical shape, and from what we've seen of him, he's not a bad looking guy. Let us say he makes coffee in the buff every morning. My guess is that the mom once caught a glimpse of him and has been slightly obsessed ever since, changing her routing so that she can walk little Jimmy to school every day, peering into the window when Williamson is not visible. Then, Monday...

"Mom, what are you doing. Are you trying to get a good look at that naked guy? Ewwww, gross."

"No, Jimmy, I just want to make sure you can't see that disgustng naked guy with his beef and two vedge hanging out. I'm going to call your daddy and have him put in jail, so no child can ever see his balls and putter ever again."

Well, if I felt that the police were harassing me, I'd probably contact the media as well.

He was also recently convicted of public intoxication and swearing in public, i.e. making an ass of himself.

And what are the odds that the policeman whose wife (and child) were the alleged victims here was unaware of this?

What are they odds they just don't like this guy? These charges are usually pretty discretionary, aren't they? They don't round up ALL the jackasses on Friday night, do they?

And how sure are you that the child actually saw anything? Assuming a height differential, the relative heights of the viewer, the viewee and the portal (the window) through which the line-of-sight would have to pass?

1) A couple of commenters have asserted that the child saw him. There is NO allegation that the child did. The complainant was a woman who said SHE saw the man. NO ONE has said the child saw him except the commenters here.

2) His rights to the property and his domicile do not change because he is a renter rather than an owner. As long as he's paying rent, the property is, for all intents and purposes, his. Again, there's a general ignorance among those who are claiming that it doesn't matter that he was in his own home because he was a renter. That's absolutely ridiculous.

3) The fact remains that she was on his property. Period. She was not on the street or a neighbor's property. If I were his lawyer, I'd have a field day with the police department that brought charges based on the facts as we know them. There are absolutely zero facts to show that he was visible to "the public" as the law would define it. People who illegally trespass on your property are not "the public."

4) My guess is that these charges will eventually be dropped once the story leaves the headlines. No prosecutor in his right mind is going to try to bring this case to an actual jury trial. He would have to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that the man INTENDED to be seen. Short of some sort of public dancing (as others have mentioned) or other overt act, the prosecutor isn't going to be able to clear that hurdle if the guy has a half-decent lawyer defending him. Also, the prosecutor would have to also prove that it was unreasonable for the man to expect to be safe from the prying eyes trespassers and "peeping moms" ON HIS OWN PROPERTY. Again, you're not going to get a jury of 12 to agree unanimously that's the case.

This case is going away eventually, no matter who the woman is married to. It's an unwinnable case for a prosecutor.

Jim, I wasn't suggesting a thing about the law as it relates to this guy being in a rental property. Personally, based on what I know, this case is a ridiculous example of police "overreach".

Many were suggesting there was more here than meets the eye, and I was merely coming up with a theory that there may have been some prejudice against a group of young "transient" men living in a family neighborhood. The reasons for not just this arrest, but for the prior arrest too, just smells of some sort of hidden agenda.

I think the bottom line is that the wife called her husband the cop, and demanded that he "DO SOMETHING" about the naked guy.

At that point, he and his buddies sprang into action to find something to charge him with - because he was going to be in big trouble if he didn't "take care of it" like his wife told him to.

I am confident that if this woman was married to anyone else, then at most the police would have knocked on his door and told him that they received a complaint and ask him to draw the curtains in the future. End of story. Nothing to see here.

So either the husband is completely hen-pecked or on a power trip to show his wife just how manly he is by "taking care of things." Either way, this is a black eye for the police department.

Just another case where justice is defined by who you know and not by common sense.

Actually I wasn't referring to your post on the renter issue. Another commenter said that it wasn't really his property since he was a renter, so he has no grounds to complain about the woman's trespassing.

I completely agree with you on your point about this being an agenda-driven arrest. I just think the agenda was marital: where the husband allowed his wife to dictate to him how he needed to do his job rather than doing what he would have done if the complaining party had been anyone other than his wife.

I believe it is high and mighty time that the most "iluminated" country on earth stopped jailing its citizens just because it CHOOSES TO BE IGNORANT about its own promise.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

the most beautiful thing about this country is that we are going to have to Continue to argue about the obvious! Yes Althusia .. you are smatter and you don't like the obvious ... but our freedom depends of it (this is not the time TO POKE FUN)

In the earliest version of the story, a woman walking her child to school peered through a man's kitchen window as she trespassed on a path beside his property and saw him making his coffee in the buff. Six police officers were dispatched to enter his home and drag him out of bed.

Then as this story turned out to be embarrassing for Fairfax police, we learned that a woman walking her child to school saw him through the significantly more visible carport door and through the kitchen window... as she trespassed on his property. Six police officers were dispatched to enter his home and drag him out of bed.

Now the police spokeswoman is claiming that he was standing in a front window that overlooks a school bus stop. With no mention of trespassing and no mention of the six police officers sent to drag him out of bed.

It's interesting that as this story has become increasingly embarrassing for the police, more and more incriminating details have been released.

It's also interesting that even though the police indicated that they wanted to clear the air, they refused to release the incident report.

It's also interesting that the woman who made the complaint is the wife of a local police officer.

Tomorrow we'll probably hear from the police spokeswoman that Williamson was standing at the bus stop doing helicopters with his big swingin' dong and that, after he committed this heinous crime, he marched directly to the police station to turn himself in with a signed written confession that he intended to molest the children at the bus stop.

I remember a Mad Magazine cartoon with a similar plot. Cops show up at a lady's house and say, Ma'am, we can't see the naked man you called us about. She replies, Of course not. You're not using these binoculars.

The original original story I heard was the woman had just managed tearing through the high and thick hedge row with a chain saw and scaled a 10' brick wall surrounding the property and managed to flip over the broken glass set into the top of the wall and set with poured concrete then pacified the the doberman pincer guard dogs with irresistible liver treats and fooled the security cameras into scanning pictures of the property placed directly in front of them instead of scanning the actual property and then cleverly negotiated the infrared alarm beams by using talcum powder to show their placement, then stumbled past an closed window with the curtains drawn while wearing platform shoes and operating a pair of circus stilts and fumbling with her telescoping eye piece up a ten-foot workman's ladder and just happened to notice through the lace light filtering window coverings an apparent silhouette of man pouring himself a cup of coffee in the nude then racing back into another room. So naturally, she called the police immediately.

"The presence of schoolchildren makes the difference. You don't think so? Then you come down here to Virginia and expose yourself to some kid. See how quickly you are made the bitch to some guy in jail."

So what you're saying, basically, is that a child seeing an adult naked through a window is such a uniquely horrific event that we need the threat of brutal vigilante anal rape to reduce the possibility of it happening?

I'm not sure where any of you got the idea that the fact that someone is trespassing on your property gives you the right to expose yourself in front of him or her. That is a totally separate question from whether he had the right mental state to be guilty of the offense. I mean, come on, think about it. The fact that someone is trespassing on my property doesn't mean that all bets are off with respect to my treatment of the trespasser.

Let me make a suggestion. Everyone who agrees that this guy has a right to walk about in his home wearing (or not wearing) whatever he pleases to put on or take off do the following: set your alarms for 5:30 tomorrow and make that coffee buck naked. Do it for a week. Offend the neighbors a little.

I used to live in Germany and got used to seeing my neighbors (husband, wife and a couple of kids) running around the backyard with nothing on, not even lederhosen. If I'd called to police I would have been in deep scheise.

the thing that it's not explained to the public via the newspapers or Television .. maybe webnewswers are beginning to grasp is that what "they" believe the American public will tolerate is no longer.. may be no longer what they used to believe people were willing to tolerate.

I will submit that the laws of US with respect to - whatever this tread seems to be about - do not reflect in any way shape or form the behavior of our president 3 to 4 elections ago ;)

The majority of state courts, though, have concluded that an indecent exposure may be criminalized if it occurs in a private dwelling, either when interpreting a common law offense or a statute. 9 Some have held that the "public" nature of the offense of indecent exposure is met when the defendant's indecent exposure occurs in front of an unobstructed window inside of a private dwelling. See Legel, 321 N.E.2d at 166 (holding that defendant indecently exposed himself in his own home by standing on top of his dining room table, under a light fixture, at night, and in clear view of the neighboring home through unobstructed sliding glass doors); State v. Odom, 554 So.2d 1281, 1284 (La. Ct. App. 1989) (upholding conviction of defendant for obscenity for standing inside his home in front of an exposed window and knocking on it to attract the attention of the neighboring children); Commonwealth v. Bishop, 296 Mass. 459, 6 N.E.2d 369, 370 (Mass. 1937) (affirming conviction of defendant for indecently exposing himself in his own home, visible by his neighbor through a window, holding that the public place element was satisfied because it was "'an intentional act of lewd exposure, offensive to one or more persons'").

Many also have determined that the behavior can be criminalized even when it is not visible from the exterior of the home. For example, in McGee v. State, 165 Ga. App. 423, 299 S.E.2d 573 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983), the defendant exposed himself to a woman in her apartment and challenged his conviction for public indecent exposure on the ground that it had not occurred in a "public place," as the statutory offense required. The court disagreed, explaining that "public place," for purposes of the crime of indecent exposure, was statutorily defined as "'any place where the conduct involved may reasonably be expected to be viewed by people other than members of the actor's family or household.'" Id. at 575. Thus, the court determined that the victim's apartment constituted a "public place" when the defendant exposed himself therein, knowing that his conduct would be observed by an individual who was not a member of his family or household. Id.

Building on McGee, the same court in Greene, 381 S.E.2d at 310, affirmed another conviction for public indecent exposure when the defendant indecently exposed himself to his children's babysitter and the babysitter's two younger siblings and a friend in his own home. In holding that Greene's home satisfied the "public place" element of the statutory offense, the court explained that: Greene by his own behavior removed the barrier and converted his bedroom and bath from a private zone to a public place, where his nudity might reasonably be expected to be viewed by people other than members of his family or household. It is not necessary that the place be visible to members of the public who are outside of it.Id. at 311. . . .

In State v. Whitaker, 164 Ariz. 359, 793 P.2d 116 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990), the defendant was charged with indecent exposure, the governing statute for which provided: A person commits public sexual indecency by intentionally or knowingly engaging in any of the following acts, if another person is present, and the defendant is reckless about whether such other person, as a reasonable person, would be offended or alarmed by the act. Id. at 117 n.1, quoting Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. Section 13-403 (1983), for exposing himself to his own two daughters, as well as two other undisclosed females, in different locations throughout his home. . . . Noting that the Legislature defined the crime as "public" indecent exposure, the court explained that a "public" indecent exposure is one that occurs in a "a place where the actor might reasonably expect his conduct to be viewed by another," and thus, "the statute's proscriptions can be committed in one's own home." Id. at 363, 119-20. See also People v. Randall, 711 P.2d 689, 695 (Colo. 1985) (affirming conviction of defendant for public indecency where defendant exposed himself to an eleven-year old boy while inside a client's home).

We are persuaded by the logic of the majority of the courts in our sister states that an indecent exposure within a private dwelling may suffice. As explored in Messina, the issue is primarily one of whether the defendant's behavior was done in secret or in a place observed or capable of being observed: "[t]he place where the offense is committed is a public one if the exposure be such that it is likely to be seen by a number of casual observers." Id. at 605, 130 A.2d at 579-80. . . .

In Byous [v. State, 121 Ga. App. 654, 175 S.E.2d 106 (Ga. Ct. App. 1970)], the defendant was convicted of indecent exposure for standing in front of a window inside of his home, visible to children getting on and off the school bus. The defendant challenged his conviction on the ground that he was not in a "public place" when he exposed himself. The definition of public place recited by the court, however, was not derived from common law, as Wisneski contends; the definition constituted the court's interpretation of the "public" element of the then statutory offense of indecent exposure. Id. at 107. The court went on to explain that the definition, "[t]aken literally . . . supports the contention of the appellant that what one does in the privacy of his own home cannot . . . be subjected to public scrutiny." Id. at 108. Nevertheless, the court affirmed the defendant's conviction, reasoning that, if the defendant deliberately disregards the protection of his walls and makes use of their windows instead to make such conduct public, his own act and not that of the State deprive him of the protection that otherwise surrounds him.Id. at 107. Thus, the court in Byous relied upon the fact that the defendant's conduct was visible to persons outside of the house in deriving its conclusion that the public element of the statutory offense had been met.

Under the relevant case law, rather than bloviating and insults, the charge against Williamson is entirely valid and a conviction could be obtained on the facts as presented.

Every person who intentionally makes an obscene display or exposure of his person, or the private parts thereof, in any public place, or in any place where others are present, or procures another to so expose himself, shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

The elements areIntentObscene Display of person, orObscene Display of private partsPublic PlacePlace where others are present

(We'll ignore procurement as inapplicable here.)

Intent must apply to every element: Did he intend to make an obscene display? Did he intend to display his private parts? Did he intend to display his private parts in view of the public? (A man's kitchen and living room are not a public place, but they might be a place where others are present.)

Assuming for the sake of argument that mere nudity constitutes an obscene display, what level of mens rea is sufficient? Was his purpose to expose his genitals to passersby? Did he know that passersby could see his genitals? Was he reckless, not caring if passersby saw his genitals or not? Or was he merely negligent, not foreseeing that people may cut through his yard at a time when they could inadvertently see into his home, and drawing his drapes to prevent it.

Virginia does define "obscene" as follows:

The word "obscene" where it appears in this article shall mean that which, considered as a whole, has as its dominant theme or purpose an appeal to the prurient interest in sex, that is, a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, excretory functions or products thereof or sadomasochistic abuse, and which goes substantially beyond customary limits of candor in description or representation of such matters and which, taken as a whole, does not have serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

As Mr. Williamson was merely making, and then drinking, coffee in the nude, it seems unlikely that he was appealing to anyone's prurient interest. Nor was he acting shamefully or morbidly, because he was simply going about the usual breakfast rituals. As far as we know, he was not engaged in sexual conduct, nor was he in a state of sexual excitment. Nor was he peeing, pooping, or flagellating himself. He did not go beyond the customary limits of candor, because he did not emphasize his genitalia by careful lighting, painting, or the like.

Virginia ia a highly moral place by the way; many of us would be sex criminals in Virginia:

Any person, not being married, who voluntarily shall have sexual intercourse with any other person, shall be guilty of fornication, punishable as a Class 4 misdemeanor.

titus would be a felon for committing the Crime Against Nature:

A. If any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony, except as provided in subsection B.

Yeah Lem -- I had a horse (with daughter on board) before. Now have the blue star as a son is back in Iraq and going to be doing good deeds for a year.

He's learning Arabic, developing a taste for Iraqi chai (strong very sweet black tea in small glasses). Says the real patriots are guys like the Iraqi translators he is spending time with on re-entry. They want want to see Iraq succeed -- a former MIG pilot in the Iraqi Air Force under Saddam, a former banker, a college graduate who majored in English....

wv mytentsMy tents? Your tents, the Professor's and Meade's tent? where will the next café meet?

So Lem -- when did your brother-in-law deploy? Recently? My son went out from Fort Benning a couple weeks ago.

He is part of the brigade(s) that is (are) helping Iraqi Army and Police. "Infantry" is part of it, but because of June agreement the Iraqis pretty much call when and how to utilize in most parts of the country... (Funny thing is he isn't infantry, he's aviation, but hey -- he volunteered for this assignment and that's where he ended up.)

(All of the above info available in newspaper articles.)

USA Today had an article the other day about the salsa lessons and joint soccer matches. Things are quiet. Things seem to be pretty good. Thank you, Gen. Petreaus.

@Bender you are the type of anal retentive tool that makes life hell on earth. Congratulations. I'm sure that characterization pleases you.

I'd far rather come across the naked guy making his coffee in his house with my 7-yr-old in tow, than expose her to what you are strenuously waving in everyone's face right here. If you're a female, that still applies.

Yes, I know that such things as rule of law and reasoned analysis no longer apply in the Age of Obama, when total dumbasses say all sorts of lame dumbass things in total ignorance and distain for things like facts, and think themselves more hip and cool and morally superior to the rest while making fools of themselves.

Just do me a favor: Please don't stand near any windows when you get around to pulling that stick out of your ass, OK? After all, if a child happened to see, we'd have no recourse but to let Bubba have his way with you.

Regular reader, infrequent commentor here. 174 posts and counting. Whoa! With all the hassles of this week I was delighted to find thread this upon openning my browser this morning...something I can laugh about and not insult anyone.

Seriously, thanks to all. I try hard not to take myself too seriously and this kind of occasional thread helps a lot.

I'm menopausal. My body gets too hot for my comfort. So, once I'm inside, even a bra is too warm. Mebbe panties are okay. Mebbe they're not. Lights on, lights off, I don't give a flying fig. I'm in my own damn house. If you're looking in and see me, you're violating my privacy. I have every expectation that you will have the courtesy not to peer into my windows; if you do, you're nothing less than a peeping tom. The Great State of Virginia, of which I'm a resident, has decided in its infinite wisdom that a trespasser has more rights than me on my own property. To my mind, this arrest extends beyond indecency; it goes straight to Kelo. It's another part of the state's dismantling of individual property rights. Now, not only can we not walk around in our homes naked, but the police can barge in, without knocking and announcing themselves—is a penis that dangerous a weapon?—and arrest me in my own home. That tells me, not a lawyer, that the state decides what rights I have is a vis my property; in fact, the state has decided that I have no property rights at all.

Bender, you have no expectation of being seen in a VA neighborhood—unless you live in the inner city. I live in a nice neighborhood. My street is dead quiet, and there are times I can stand naked in my garage entry way and know that no one will see me, especially if my neighbor, diagonally opposite, is not home. This is not NYC. THis is VA. That woman LOOKED. Not once, but twice. She must've been checking out his package cuz she saw when he moved to stand someplace else. She was LOOKING. SHe is the one at fault, no him.

Trespassers invade the privacy of your home and you get arrested. Why not? In our world, democratic action is fascism and fascists are true democrats-just follow madam Sec of State around the world. This really isn't funny, I think its really telling about the direction of our country.

If it happened at 8:40 a.m., the guy wasn't expecting schoolchildren to be traipsing through his yard and carport. School starts earlier than that. He wasn't putting on a show.

I think the woman should be arrested for trespassing and voyeurism.

I have three windows in my living/dining room area of my apartment. The only window treatment on them is miniblinds. The middle window is non-standard size--some construction doofus did not measure twice. So the miniblinds fall off when you pull the string to raise or lower them. The last time it happened the hardware came out too. So I have an uncovered window and sometimes I prance around nekkid. Not as a habit but I have that post-hysterectomy blazing fire and I can't do anything about it and it's so bad sometimes I just want to shave my head bald again for relief. After a shower I have to be nekkid for a bit to cool off.

Want my address?

Warning--no you don't, honestly.

My neighbors are old and I'm afraid of shocking them to death if they would happen to see....

This guy could be completely innocent or completely not innocent. Yeah, being naked in your kitchen should not be a crime, but flaunting your junk at kids and strangers is not acceptable behavior, not even on your property where you are clearly visable. There is no inbetween. This is determinable from the facts. That is why police do investigations, then prosecutors look at things, and then we have trials. If there is reasonable doubt over the issue, we defer to no crime being committed.

The headline of that article is not true. He was not arrested "for making coffee" and being naked. He was arrested for being naked; incidentally, he happened to be making some coffee. It reminds me of a recent CNN story that reported that a woman was arrested "for cutting in line" at a WalMart -- not mentioning (until much later) that she was actually arrested for assaulting someone in line. Saying that someone was arrested "for" doing something perfectly legal (when that's not actually what they were arrested for) is a manipulative journalistic tactic to try to make people feel sympathetic for the accused. I'm not saying people shouldn't feel sympathetic for him, but I don't see what the coffee has to do with it.

jaltcoh: context is everything. Here, mentioning the coffee showed that nudity was incidental to his activity, but that it was a usual part of his previous activity -- sleep-- and that nudity while alone in one's own home was not obviously meant to shock anyone.

He was not a classic flasher or wienie wagger. He did not perform a strip tease in front of his window. But nor was he naked for the usual purpose of bathing or changing clothes. He woke up naked, and went to the kitchen to make coffee.

The Great State of Virginia, of which I'm a residentThen you ought to know by now that Virginia isn't a state, it's a Commonwealth.

I was in the MEN's locker room at the Y last night when the back door opened 6 feet away and 3 little kids came in with their father and grandfather (the pool is across the hall, the boy's locker room is upstairs). I was literally 2 seconds from pulling down my shorts and mooning them. I grabbed my towel and told the father "good timing." He had a military haircut--cop? I'm quite sure they hadn't paid the extra $200/yr to use that locker room.

It's late at night. He's in the dark. Why is someone looking into his house anyway? That's what I want to know. I think it's a bogus charge to slam someone for walking around in their own house. It's an invasion of privacy. I think the person who reported him should be busted for being a peeping tom.